If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Alexandrian Cult - I agree that the blind allegiance of many today to the modern version probability-possibililty critical text (based on two corrupt manuscripts) is irrational .. not understandable logically, and "Alexandrian cult" is one reasonable explanation. Many people simply do not want there to be a final authority, so they are attracted to theories that allow them to reject the one pure Bible and tangible inspiration and preservation. A smorgasbord approach is preferred.

(After all, even James White says he prefers the KJB text of 1 Timothy 3:16 .. those who have the Alexandrian cult mentality do not really believe their text is the pure word of God, it is simply a possible starting point for thoughts and redactions and rejections and changes and the person's own decisions. And they never want to state clearly their actual "probability" that a verse they are reading is the word of God rather than the tampering of man. They will simply tell you what they are "comfortable with" .. a recent response I received .. and they are comfortable with not knowing God's word from man's tampering. No verse is sure. )

However the modern versions today, full of errors and corruptions and omissions, do not represent any "stream of Bibles" at all. No known Greek or Latin or Syriac Bible churches and communities from 400 AD to 1881 were ever reading such corrupt versions as are put out today from the "Critical Text", nothing even remotely close.

Over the period from 400 AD to today, many were reading the Latin Vulgate, yet the Latin Vulgate is not remotely as corrupt as the Critical Text today, e.g. it has the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, the Pericope Adultera, the heavenly witnesses, Acts 8:37, John 1:18 correct and more. While also having many corruptions as in 1 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 5:22 , and also a number of poor translations from Greek to Latin.

The difficulty of talking about streams of Bibles is something like this, working with a purity quotient.

The Reformation Bible was developed in a providential manner, see REFORMATION BIBLE DYNAMIC below, which is why it is exceedingly pure.

Returning to STREAMS OF BIBLES -- > the Critical Text and Vaticanus-Sinaiticus simply have no significant historical attestation. They represent a certain amount of limited usage in the 4th century (since there is a connection to the Constantine 50 Bibles). By the fifth century the Greek world was working with the pure Byzantine Text and the Latin world was working with the fair Vulgate and Old Latin lines, the alexandrian corruption manuscripts were of little note. A few Greek extant manuscripts over the next 1000 years show a mild affinity to the alexandrian mss (perhaps up to 10 more manuscripts, less than 1%, are said to have some affinity, yet these often agree with our Byzantine text and will not have many of the alexandrian corruptions in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). We know of no church which utilized these texts, east or west, after whoever used the Constantine-Eusebius-published Bible in the 300s and its small lineage.

STREAMS OF BIBLES and the MODERN VERSION TEXTUAL ALEXANDRIAN HODGE-PODGE

The problem with talking of "streams of Bibles" is that it tends to underplay the significance of the abject corruption in the modern versions, which corruption, hundreds of blunders, errors, omissions .. simply has no significant historical ecclesiastical or textual support. No stream of Bibles is reflected. No churches in Antioch or Rome or Greece or Spain or Constaninople or England or Carthage was reading a Bible that was corrupt in the manner of the modern GNT or the even worse underlying manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Remember the English translations fudge a lot of issues (keeping the reader guessing) by including text in special print or location or footnote that their own GNT actually claims is not original scripture, in their normal "we are not really sure" fashion. And this is after the Critical Text GNT ignores hundreds of obvious blunders in its own underlying proof-texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. See e.g. the Tischendorf offhand reference to "many obvious blunders" or the Dean John Burgon analysis, or the verses given by Scrivener and Hoskier.

Thus a fabricated text (first secretly foisted in 1871 by Westcott and Hort upon the revision committee with no public or peer review and analysis and discussion) was created that has about 200 verses (Professor Maurice Robinson, precise number unsure) with no exemplar in any language whatsoever. This is because within one verse a dubious word can be taken from Vaticanus here and a phrase from Sinaitcus there, creating a unique textual hybrid hopeful monster. Which then becomes a modern version "Bible".

Also the Stream of Bible argument tends to be unfair to the Vulgate, which is downgraded to an equivalence to the ultra-corrupt modern versions as an "Alexandrian cult" text. Also it tends to lift up the Old Latin too much, as if this was clearly a distinct and major improvement over the Vulgate texts.

REFORMATION BIBLE DYNAMIC

And by making the Vulgate the textual enemy, the KJB defender has to work awkwardly around the fascinating and powerful Reformation Bible dynamic, which actually incorporated together the preservation from the Greek fountainhead and the Vulgate and Old Latin, with excellent reference to and support from early church writers and internal evidences. Thus the lacks in the Greek text that were correct in the Latin (often simply omissions, the most trivial scribal error, like the heavenly witnesses and minority textual representation for Acts 8:37) were easily seen to be pure scripture by the solid combination of textual considerations. This was done by the Bible textual giants of Erasmus unto Stephanus unto Beza .. with a providential process of correction and purification unto 1611.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR KJB DEFENDERS

Not understanding these issues fully has led to two competing defective KJB positions. On one side, the Dean John Burgon society folks, and some others, try to fudge the actual development process of the Textus Receptus and mix it up with the Greek Byzantine Text (a major component in development, but a different text), a major conceptual error. This can be seen clearly in a recent Kirk DiVietro interview.

As a side-error the DBS claims that they are essentially "TR Only" (no inspiration for you, AV) that they support by trying to work around the clear words of the AV in 2 Timothy 3:16 that scripture is present-tense ie. today. This is a terrible inconsistency, since they claim to affirm the English KJB words on one hand, and then try to "correct" them by Greek twirling, simply to try to separate the AV from inspired scripture. A real scholastic travesty, almost humorous in its transparent inconsistency.

Also the DBS struggles with the simple fact they have no one TR text, that the TR was a process of textual correction and purification. Trying to affirm the Scrivener 1881 text, derivative from the KJB, is clearly logically futile. And in fact the King James Bible actually represents the apex of purity and perfection of the Received Text development and dynamic.

The other defective position is given by Gail Riplinger who seeks to emphasize the northern European "vernacular versions" (e.g. Gothic, Gaellic, Celtic, Old Saxon) as a supposed significant element of development of the King James Bible, which is a sidestep around the providential Reformation Bible. This emphasis simply lacks historical and textual support. Those European vernaculars were usually Old Latin and Vulgate derivative, the Gothic is Greek-derivative, their texts were of minimal textual import from 1500 to 1611 to today, except to help corroborate specific readings (e.g. Gothic Codex Argentus supports the Mark ending yet not the Pericope Adultera).

Aware King James Bible defenders, I would suggest, should avoid both ditches. In a certain sense the DBS ditch is more conceptually serious, since it involves the very definitions of scripture and inspiration and which text is the pure and perfect word of God. Yet the Riplinger diversion to a non-relevant issue away from the Reformation Bible can only hinder our defense of the pure Bible. We should simply want our exposition to be on a sound basis.

Here is Edward Hills on the providential element of the Reformation Bible.

"the formation of the Textus Receptus was guided by the special providence of God. There were three ways in which the editors of the Textus Receptus Erasmus. Stephanus. Beza. and the Elzevirs, were providentially guided. In the first place, they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them. In the second place, they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves. Then in the third place, and most of all. they were guided by the common faith. Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God's special providence. It was this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus." - Edward Hills

This is a good starting point for a more balanced understanding, as long was we continue that providential element unto the Authorized Version !

The key error in these charts is simple, it is the false dichotomy created in the Latin lines. In point of fact, the Old Latin and the Vulgate with the ECW that used those latin Bibles, all contributed to the excellence of the Reformation Bible.

The error here is from the heritage of Benjamin Wilkinson mangling Frederick Nolan, in order to paint the Vulgate as the bad Bible against the Waldensian good Bible. In point of fact, the people of the hills likely loved the sound and rhythm of their Bibles and resisted ... at some times, yet not fully ... the Vulgate. If so, and it is not easily demonstrable, this was more cultural and linguistic, the community of faith expressed, than textual.

All charts and expositions that put the Old Latin and the Vulgate on opposite sides of the Bible divide are not aligned with the textual truth. Jerome updated the existing Old Latin mss, rather faithfully. And it is hard to tell what Greek ms he used, since the updates were small and we don't have the 400 AD Vulgate extant. And the problem overall is not a small problem, because it then becomes necessary to fog up the excellent use of the Greek fountainhead and Latin traditional Bibles by the learned men who gave us the Reformation Bible.

See Edward Freer Hills as an AV defender who acknowledged this contributions. This fogging is done by many. Gail Riplinger, as one example, attempts to squeeze in vernacular versions -- as the replacement for the true history that would acknowledge the Latin contribution to our Bibles. However the basic problem came decades before Gail Riplinger.

The rcc even supported the fine scholarship of the Complutensian and of Erasmus, against the Latin Bible cultrual primacy as late as the early 1500s. It was only the counter-reformation of Trent around 1546, against the pure Received Text, where they went wildly astray. Then in the 1900s they supported the ultra-corrupt Westcott-Hort recension, going even more astray. Perhaps they angled for that as a plan B, as in the two meetings with Tischendorf, in one of which the pope virtually kissed his ring.

===============

Textually, the Old Latin and the Vulgate are about equal, in fact the Old Latin has some wildness in readings where the Vulgate is more attune to the pure Bible.

Hope this helps, I know many AV defenders have found the simplified two lines charts to be colorful, largely accurate, and effective.

** And there are two major Greek lines, that can be described as Antiochan and Alexandrian. **
However, a chart like the one above shoots for a lot more, and can wound you in the foot.

CARM 2014 (purged)
The two streams charts are oversimplified, and have some major problems.

The biggest single problem can be seen by looking at the Latin mss, the Old Latin, which on the left is "Latin Bibles" and the Vulgate, which is put as Jerome 382. (Actual year is 383 for the Gospels, later for the rest.)

These two lines often intermixed in the manuscript lines. They both often support the pure Bible readings, having contributed to the Received Text. And often support the corruptions in the Vaticanus Alexandrian text (both are fine on the two 12-verse major omissions.) Thus, they are somewhere in the middle, however that is not what the chart is looking for. And the great majority of the time the Old Latin Bibles and the Vulgate agree (which is not surprising, since the Vulgate was an update of the Old Latin.)

If you have specific questions about any blocks in the chart, or how the ideas behind the chart developed, or the claims of MartialApologist above, or what is a better conceptual way to look at the development of the pure Reformation Bible, I would be happy to address any such specifics. #27 In this case, even Steven Avery admits that the two-streams argument does not hold up and is not sound.

There is nothing to "admit". It is a happy acknowledgement, and I never used two streams theory. As the proper understanding shows that the Reformation Bible drew from the fountainhead Greek and historic Latin lines. The two streams theory fudges that history.

By cleaning up the problems in the two streams theory (whether it is maintained in a modified form or not) it becomes much easier to understand the superb textual work of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, that brought forth pure English Bibles like the Tyndale and Geneva, and then the most excellent, the AV.

While the colors are nice, and the theory is interesting, the facts simply do not match up. Trying to put the Old Latin and the Vulgate on opposite sides of a divide simply does not match the evidences. The Vulgate made a solid contribution to the Reformation Bible. The Vaticanus text is far more corrupt than the Vulgate or Old Latin. The so-called Old Syriac is ultra-corrupt, the Peshitta is the better Syriac text. The Ethiopic is Alexandrian. The Bohemian is essentially from the Vulgate.

The basic problem, the textual paradigm is wrong, it was passed down from Benjamin Wilkinson, it is flawed, it has elements of truth and large elements of error when so presented, and overall, is better discarded. The alternatives is really understanding the dynamic of the development of the Reformation Bible and its purity, excellence and majesty, (As well as the Westcott-Hort Vaticanus primacy critical text corruption.) It is true that the rcc has embraced that textus corruptus now as its plan B, after the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate in the 1500s-->1700 Battle of the Bible.

Next, how he mangled Frederick Nolan.
Others who followed this lead, directly or through Fuller.

Dr. Nolan, who had already acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, and researches into Egyptian chronology, and was a lecturer of note, spent twenty-eight years to trace back the Received Text to its apostolic origin. He was powerfully impressed to examine the history of the Waldensian Bible. He felt certain that researches in this direction would demonstrate that the Italic New Testament, or the New Testament of those primitive Christians of northern Italy whose lineal descendants the Waldenses were, would turn out to be the Received Text. He says:

"The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact, that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the author thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpation of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."f52

Gene Kim repeats the common AV defender error that the Old Latin was the good Bible and the Latin Vulgate was the bad Bible. This error has tainted King James Bible defense, since it came forth from Benjamin Wilkinson in 1930, in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, who wrote of:

"Fundamentally, there are only two streams of Bibles."

And thus Wilkinson placed the Gallic, the Celtic and the Waldensian Bibles (as examples of the Old Latin line) as being Received Text Bibles. This was done with a fallacy of the false dichotomy:

since the Old Latin Bibles had some distinctions from the Vulgate and
since there were only two lines (note the circular reasoning) thus
the Old Latin Bibles had to be Received Text Bibles.

Note that this was NOT determined by any checking of verses and variants. which would have shown huge differences from ALL our extant Old Latin Bibles and the Received Text.

Plus, the Received Text was to a large extent a Greek and Latin preservation / reconstruction text, and the learned men of the 1500s, Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza especially, were pleased to use the Vulgate as a major part of that effort.

Correcting the Latin from the Greek, yet also correcting the Greek from the Latin.

Even while we appreciate and uplift the memory of those faithful Christian men and woman who read, loved, memorized and sang from their Old Latin Bibles, even while we appreciate the sincerity, tenor and "charm" (Wilkinson) of their Bibles, we have to be truthful and accurate to the textual realities.

This idea that these Bibles were themselves "Received Text" (from the second century to 1500, after Erasmus they would be influenced by the Reformation Bible corrections) is simply wrong. Textually, they were far closer to the Vulgate. The Old Latin and the Vulgate remained as sister texts for over 1,000 years, with many mss being hybrids.

In fact, the Vulgate's history was that of an updating of the Old Latin, generally keeping its text, eliminating some oddball phrases that had crept in. There really is no historical indication that the nascent roman catholic establishment (the Gospel part of the text was presented to Damasus, the bishop of Rome) had influence upon Jerome's textual decisions. And we can not easily determine the Greek texts that were used by Jerome, but it definitely was not simply a "Vaticanus-P75" Alexandrian text.

Trying to taint the Vulgate as the bad Bible is similar to those who try to taint the Received Text because it was (before the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation emphasis, and when being developed by Erasmus and the scholarly Spanish crew of the Complutensian Polyglot) to a certain extent an RCC-approved enterprise. Later disowned, with Trent and the Index of Forbidden Books being the breaking point.

There is simply too much anachronism involved in both attacks, upon Jerome and upon Erasmus. ** A false exposition or attack does not gain credence and truth by good intention and purpose.**

Incidentally, Jerome was the key figure in the early church who uplifted the Hebrew Bible. against great opposition, an excellent position that was the forerunner of the superb Old Testament Hebrew Bible "Received Text" decisions.

=============

One more point on Wilkinson.

Wilkinson tried to buttress his position by an appeal to the learned works of Frederick Nolan (1784-1864). You can see a quote given here, where Wilkinson tries to sound like Nolan equates the Waldensian text with the Received Text, which might give a leg for the two lines theory.

=====================

Wilkinson"the Italic New Testament, or the New Testament of those primitive Christians of northern Italy whose lineal descendants the Waldenses were, would turn out to be the Received Text. He (Nolan) says:

"The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman.... abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."https://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT211

======================

However, Nolan is not saying they were using the Received Text, simply that the heavenly witnesses was in the Old Latin, and there were some important points of confluence.

This is true, and important, and Jerome affirmed the same excellence of the heavenly witnesses in his Vulgate Prologue, and Nolan himself properly says:

"I assert the disputed prologue to be his genuine composition."https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA276

So the Old Latin and the Vulgate agreed.

=====================

Wilkinson's textual theories were to some extent a reflection of the SDA embrace of the Waldensians against the papacy, which is anti-Christ in their historicist eschatology. You can see this Wilkinson emphasis, which draws much of its perspective from the writings of Ellen G. White, in his 1944 book, Truth Triumphant.

Yet, even if we have strong sympathies with that analysis, it does not change the Bible textual "facts on the ground".

There really is no indication that the Old Latin is a "Received Text" Bible, and there is barely any indication that it is superior, textually, than the Vulgate.

If Old Latin Bibles had a great superiority over the Vulgate, it was in the charm and lyricism and heart with which the Bibles were embraced by the groups that were persecuted by the rcc. They actually believed their Bibles. The Bible was not a secretive springboard for an oppressive ecclesiastical clique, those precious Bibles were the word of God in the hands of Christian believers.

two streams theory - the early years 1930-1970

And I started making a point of showing this more directly, in response to charts and various presentations, at least by November, 2014. (These next two Facebook posts, a little below, are also mentioned above.)

=====

The contra writer, Rick Norris, has extracted a number of the quotes from AV defenders (without offering any sensible overall Bible position.) Often his quotes are out-of-context, in this case, I have not seen any real problems with the quotes themselves, and they do represent the lineage of how the over-simplified two-streams theory was passed down. Rick likely drew from the Doug Kutilek earlier writings that discussed the Waldensian Bible theories.
The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version (1991)
Doug Kutilek http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_waldensian.htm

I'll plan on placing at least a url to one of the Norris quote-snippet fests here as well.

While the colors are nice, and the theory is interesting, the facts simply do not match up. Trying to put the Old Latin and the Vulgate on opposite sides of a divide simply does not match the evidences. The Vulgate made a solid contribution to the Reformation Bible. The Vaticanus text is far more corrupt than the Vulgate or Old Latin. The so-called Old Syriac is ultra-corrupt, the Peshitta is the better Syriac text. The Ethiopic is Alexandrian. The Bohemian is essentially from the Vulgate..The basic problem, the textual paradigm is wrong, it was passed down from Benjamin Wilkinson, it is flawed, it has elements of truth and large elements of error when so presented, and overall, is better discarded. The alternatives is really understanding the dynamic of the development of the Reformation Bible and its purity, excellence and majesty, (As well as the Westcott-Hort Vaticanus primacy critical text corruption.) It is true that the rcc has embraced that textus corruptus now as its plan B, after the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate in the 1500s-->1700 Battle of the Bible.

From the 1930s and Benjamin Wilkinson the Two Streams theory went to his writing in the David Otis Fuller book, Which Bible?, c. 1970. Fuller had a section from Wilkinson, but kept his identity as an Adventist hidden. Here are the chapters of the Fuller book, although Wilkinson had extracts from ten of his sixteen chapters, edited by Fuller.

And I am going to conjecture that the idea of quoting Ray, as in the tract below, came later, and this worked as a way around the fact that the Baptists do not want to be quoting Adventists. However, Ray had plagiarized Wilklinson, as shown below in the Gary Hudson article.

A possible exercise is to go through a section, like the one below, Ray on two streams, and see precisely how bad was the plagiarism (unlike Fuller, Ray does not even reference Wilkinson.)

A correlated historical summary of textual criticism reveals that only two streams of Bibles have come to us. These are tne products of two separate religious systens. First, the true Christian religion puts the inspired Word of God above everything else. The other system puts something above the Bible, or places human tradition in a chair of equal authority with it. At the council of Trent, (1546) 53 prelates made a decree declaring that the Apocryphal books, together with unwritten tradition are of God, and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. (1) See foot-note.
1. H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 308.

At first the only scriptures in existance were those given by inspiration of God, (2 Peter 1:21) These messages were put into writing, and when placed into book form they became Bible number one, the true Word of God. This stream has come to us crystal clear, through the divine providence of God's omniscience. It's pure, life-giving water of God's inspired Word has power to produce saving faith, (Romans 10:17).

The other Bibles have come to us in a stream whose waters are clouded with the "Mud" of philosophic, scholastic textual criticism, and seems in part to be based upon the reasonings of the "natural man, "(1 Corinthians 2:14). The source of this stream is uncertain, hypothetical, and untrustworthy. It has produced a multiplicity of Bible versions which differ so much from each other that the result is faith repelling confusion.

If pollution can be found at the source of any stream, the whole will be permeated with contamination. Right here is the answer to most of the questions being asked today, regarding the Bible version mystery. Faith destroying contamination exists at the source of this stream. Read on and you will find plenty of evidence to satisfy an honest heart.

A SECRET PLOT OF DIPLOMATIC TRICKERY SEEKS TO DESTROY GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION

...

MOST BIBLE VERSIONS HAVE COME TO US FROM CORRUPTED MANUSCRIPTS

Above, in the words of the Bible, we have a description of the beginning of the stream of corrupted Bible manuscripts, wh:ch are evidently used as the basis for many contradicting and confusing Bible versions now being widely emphasized. "Even before the death of the apostles, there was a strong disposition on the part of the great out-lying world, to destroy the new religion. "(1)

Within the first hundred years after the death of the apostles, Irenaeus said concerning Marcion, the agnostic: "Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the gospel according to Luke; and the epistles of Paul they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves shortened. "(2) "The attack on Christianity dealt largely with the Scriptures.'(3) Epiphanius in his treatise the "Panarion" describes not less than eighty heretical parties(4) In this way each party planned to further their own ends.

"The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed. The African Fathers, and the whole western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later when molding the TEXTUS RECEPTUS" (1). Those who were corrupting Bible Manuscripts said that they were correcting them. Corrupted copies were so prevalent that agreement between them was hopeless (2).

Somewhere around the year 175 A.D.,Tatian wrote a harmony of the four gospels which was called the Diatessaron. This was so notoriously corrupt that a bishop of Syria was compelled to throw out of his churches two hundred copies because church members were taking it for the true gospel (3).

WARRING SECTS WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER AROUND CONSTANTINE’S ORIGEN-EUSEBIAN BIBLE

A potential condition of peace was brought about, and these warring sects were consolidated under the iron hand of Constantine around the year 331 A. D. This was accomplished, by adopting a Bible which combined pure scripture with a number of conflicting Revised Versions in such a way as to give sanction to both Chris -tain and pagan religions. (Like our modem Ecumenical Movement).

Origen, one of the world's foremost theologians, (185-254 A.D.), taught that the "Logos" is "ktisma, " meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being, who did not have eternal existence as God. (See pages 900-902, Vol. 16, 1936 edition Encyclopedia Britannica). Eusebius was a great admirer of Origen, and a student of his philosophy. He had just edited the fifth column of the Hexapla which was Origen's Bible. Constantine chose this, and asked Eusebius to prepare 50 copies for him. Dr. Ira M. Price refers to this as follows: "Euaebius of Caesarea (260 - 340) the first church historian, assisted by Pamphillus or vice versa, issued with all it's critical remarks the fifth column of the Hexapla, with alternative readings from the other columns, for use in Palestine. The Emperor Constantine gave orders that 50 copies of this edition should be prepared for use in the churches" (4).'Sir Robert Anderson,L.C.B. ,L L.D ., page 48, The Church and the Bible, says "Constantine, the wolf of paganism openly assumed the sheep's clothing of the Christian religion."

Several textual authorities believe that the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts are two extant copies of the 50 Greek scriptures copied for Constantine by Eusebius in 331 A.D., (notes 1-7) In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origin; are terms which are inseparable. "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other."

Eusebius, besides making copious use of the gospels, did not hesitate to introduce material from the Apocryphal writings, traditions and all other available sources. He even incorporated without change much of the legendary matter of Hegesippus (8). This is the declaration of history which describes the character of the man reputed to be the author of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts.

Peter Ruckman in the 1960s:The Bible Babel:A Critical and Practical Survey of the Motives, Sources, and Methods of 20th Century Translations and Translators

If one of our readers has the early material from Peter Ruckman, it would be interesting to see how he handles "two stream" theory.

And I will try to add more detail and precision about this period of c. 1950 - 1970, however this is online and is helpful.

God Wrote Only ONE Bibleby David Otis Fuller, D.D. (1903 to 1988)
Grand Rapids, Michigan
TRACT # B-206 ORDER FROM:
TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH
E. L. Bynum, Pastorhttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/god_wrote_only_one_bible-fuller.htm
The following are a few of the salient facts as recorded by Mr. Ray in his remarkable book. "A correlated historical summary of textual criticism reveals that only two streams of Bibles have come to us. These are the products of two separate systems. First, the true Christian Faith puts the Inspired Word of God above everything else. The other system puts something above the Bible, or places human traditions in a chair of equal authority with it. At the Council of Trent, called by the Catholic Church in 1546, A.D., 53 prelates made a decree declaring that the Apocryphal books, together with unwritten tradition, are of God, and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God."

"Somewhere around the year 175 A.D. Tatian wrote a harmony of the four Gospels which was called the Diatessaron. This was so notoriously corrupt that a bishop of Syria was compelled to throw out of his churches two hundred copies because church members were taking it for the true Gospel." (This was one of the many forerunners of our modern day counterfeit RSV.)

"An indication that Arianism (the denial of Christ's Deity) is with us today is to be found in the footnote of the ASV (American Standard Version) at John 9:38. In verse 35 the Lord Jesus asks the man born blind if he believes on the Son of God. In verse 38 he replies, "Lord, I believe, and he worshipped Him". In this footnote the translators plainly reveal the fact that they do not believe in the Deity of Christ but refer to Him as a mere creature of Adam's race. Turn to this in your American Standard Version and see for yourself. Referring to the word "worship" the note reads; 'The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (AS HERE) or to the creator.' Consider this when you hear Bible teachers say; 'This is the best version!'" (And the ASV was published some 50 years before the RSV!)

"A version is that which is translated, or rendered from one language to another. The Textus Receptus is NOT a version. It is composed of basic manuscript copies from which the King James Version was made. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort changed the reading of the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places. The Revision of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version Bibles, are in no true sense a revision of the King James of 1611. If they were, they would follow the same Greek text, the Textus Receptus, and thus would contain the same verses.

"Textus Receptus is the Latin for the Received Text. This is the Greek manuscript used as a basis for the translation of the King James Bible in 1611. However, this collection of canonical manuscripts, written in the Greek language, did not receive the name 'Textus Receptus' until the days of the Elziver brothers in 1633. In the preface of their Greek New Testament they printed the following words translated into English, 'Therefore thou hast the text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt'."

"A number of textual authorities state that the Bible of the Syrian Church, the Peshitta, was translated from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian about 150 A.D. . . . This Peshitta version is admired by Syriac scholars as a careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style. These characteristics have given it the title 'The Queen of the Versions'."

Antioch was the capital of Syria where the early believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). In a few years the Syrian believers could be numbered by the thousands. Their Bible, the Peshitta, even today generally follows the Received Text (Textus Receptus). This is another proof that the foundation for the King James Bible is older and more reliable than the Codex Vaticanus which was elevated to the chair of authority by Westcott and Hort.

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, spent 28 years in tracing the Received Text (Textus Receptus) back to its apostolic origin. His searching led him to investigate the Bible texts of the Waldenses who were the lineal descendants of the Italic Church. This being done, Dr. Nolan says, "It has supplied me with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolic branch of the primitive church." This means that the Textus Receptus, the basis for the King James Version, has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century. It is important to note here that the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS were not brought into existence for many years following the Textus Receptus, when Eusebius copied them for Constantine.

Notice how the Frederick Nolan quote loses the context of the heavenly witnesses and now is given a new spin by putting it in the context of a Benjamin Wilkinson style analysis.
Thus, the Standish brothers wrote in a smilar SDA-mode, although they tried to keep it simple, possibly aware that they were on shaky ground in the oversimplified analysis.

From these two copyist perspectives, two quite different streams of Greek manuscripts emerged. The Eastern stream, which became centered on Syria and Constantinople, remained true to the original writings of the apostles, while the Western stream, centered on Alexandria and Rome, was markedly flawed by both deliberate and careless alterations.

Now the list of AV defenders, mostly Baptist, a couple SDA, some others, who have followed with this two streams argument, passed down from Wilkinson, is quite long. It includes Sam Gipp, Mickey Carter, Jack Moorman, James Sightler, David L. Brown, David Sorenson, Vance Ferrell, Alan O'Reilly and others.

Ray’s book attempts to trace what he terms “two streams of Bibles” back through a highly subjective (and often inaccurate) history of New Testament manuscripts, one line being “corrupt” and the other “the Bible God wrote.” The one “God wrote” is, according to Ray, the “Textus Receptus” Greek of the KJV... On page 71, Ray has a chart of the “corrupt” line of Bibles which includes Jerome’s Latin Vulgate of 382 A. D. and the Douay version of 1582. Then on page 109, Ray includes the Wycliff translation of 1382 in his “pure stream” that allegedly descends from the “Original Textus Receptus.” Ray has not done his homework. A smattering of knowledge on the history of the English Bible would reveal to anyone that Wycliff’s Bible was translated directly from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate, as was the Douay. Such carelessness on basic information is inexcusable.

The contras can easily show the falsity of the "two streams" oversimplified construct by looking at the Latin lines.

Wilkinson attempts to answer objections

Here is a longer section from Wilkinson, given in a response and analysis piece, that is itself uneven, but again, is helpful on this topic. Barbara Aho (if she is the writer) seems to be pro-TR but contra the AV perfection position. Offhand, I am not sure if this article worked with Doug Kutilek material.

A good portion of Wilkinson’s book is devoted to portraying the medieval Waldenses as the “true Christians” who preserved the Textus Receptus during the Dark Ages.

“Anyone who is interested enough to read the vast volume of literature on this subject, will agree that down through the centuries there were only two streams of manuscripts.

The first stream which carried the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek, began with the apostolic churches, and reappearing at intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases; by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where Christians fled, when in 70 A. D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the Waldensian. and the churches of the Reformation.” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 12)

“For nine hundred years, we are told, the first Latin translations held their own after the Vulgate appeared. The Vulgate was bom about 380 A.D. Nine hundred years later brings us to about 1280 A.D. This accords well with the fact that at the famous Council of Toulouse, 1229 A.D., the Pope gave orders for the most terrible crusade to be waged against the simple Christians of southern France and northern Italy who would not bow to his power. Cruel, relentless, devastating, this war was waged, destroying the Bibles, books, and every vestige of documents to tell the story of the Waldenses and Albigenses.

“Since then, some authorities speak of the Waldenses as having as their Bible, the Vulgate. We regret to dispute these claims. But when we consider that the Waldenses were, so to speak, in their mountain fastnesses, on an island in the midst of a sea of nations using the Vulgate, without doubt they knew and possessed the Vulgate; but the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible, the one for which they lived and suffered and died.” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 28)
Our Authorized Bible Vindicatedhttps://books.google.com/books?id=CDuVBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT24

“It is evident that the so-called Christian Emperor gave to the Papacy his endorsement of the Eusebio-Origen Bible. It was from this type of manuscript that Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate which became the authorized Catholic Bible for all time.

The Latin Vulgate, the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, are terms for ideas that are inseparable in the minds of those who know. The type of Bible selected by Constantine has held the dominating influence at all times in the history of the Catholic Church. This Bible was different from the Bible of the Waldenses. and, as a result of this difference, the Waldenses were the object of hatred and cruel persecution, as we shall now show. In studying this history, we shall see how it was possible for the pure manuscripts, not only to live, but actually to gain the ascendance in the face of powerful opposition.” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 22)

The article then goes into its refutation and positions. There are weaknesses in what is expressed, but the basic position that Benjamin Wilkinson had misrepresented the Waldensian Bible issues, and thus the "two streams" concepts, is correct.

However, some AV defenders have dug themselves into this presentation deeply. In a sense, it is almost like our version of the "deeply entrenched scholarship" that has blinded the Sinaiticus issue from the Critical Text Westcott-Hort recension folks. So, I believe I am impelled by the Holy Spirit to take this issue public. And to even quote from people whose overall positions are wrong, if they are mostly right on this question. Some AV defenders have properly avoided using this argument, and this can be complimented, but there still is a hesitation to say:

"oops, that chart, that argument, is not really right"

=====================
Wilkinson received a lot of flack in Adventist circles, as in this Review.

An Epitome of the Findings of This Section ...5. The author’s arbitrarily created “two parallel streams of Bibles” is shown not to rest upon historical authority, and the “changes” between the A.V. and A.R.V. are shown to be but minor deviations of what is substantially one identical, fundamental text.https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/944.236#246

The criticism is rather feeble, and wrong. The changes are huge. However, the real weaknesses in the "two streams" theory is not addressed, instead it is pretended that the Westcott-Hort recension is only "minor deviations"!

While often the criticisms were unfair and wrong, we are focusing here on one area where Wilkinson was in fact way off.

I. The Parallel Streams of Bibles.
My Reviewers claim, (Section I, p. 9) that the “two parallel streams of Bible” (Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, p. 43) is arbitrarily created and does not rest upon historical authority. In my book, however, I proved conclusively that both the Textus Receptus and the Vaticanus MSS were already in existence in the days of Constantine; rivals to one another and constituting opposing Bibles. I also proved, historically, in the same chapter, that the Waldensian Bible was from the Textus Receptus. Now the Spirit of Prophecy says that the Waldensian Bible was of apostolic origin, uncorrupted, entire, and teaching apostolic Christianity. The Reformation adopted the Textus Receptus; the Jesuit counter-Reformation adopted the Vaticanus. Both these facts I proved soundly and completely in my book. If, therefore, the Textus Receptus and Vaticanus were rivals in the days of Constantine, the Textus Receptus being of apostolic origin, and the Vaticanus being a corruption of the Textus Receptus, then the Old Latin Bible of the Waldenses from the Textus Receptus was and we proved it so, historically, the rival of the Vulgate taken from manuscripts of the Vaticanus type.

The Spirit of Prophecy endorses this line of reasoning. I gave in my book (p. 42) that quotation from Sister White which shows that the Waldenses possessed a Bible which came from apostolic days, was entire, was unadulterated and was ever sought by the fury of the papists to be corrupted. The Spirit of Prophecy, however, tells us that angels restrained their malignant hatred and their efforts to bury the Waldensian Bible under a mass of error and superstition.

The Spirit of Prophecy further tells us that the Bible of Wycliffe was from the Latin (Vulgate) and contained many errors, but the Vulgate was a Catholic Bible. On the other hand, the Spirit of Prophecy tells us that the Greek Text of Erasmus corrected these errors, but the Greek text of Erasmus was the Textus Receptus. Therefore, the Waldenses had a pure Bible from the beginning, based on the Textus Receptus or in harmony with it. The reasoning then goes thus: (a) The Waldenses endorsed what was the apostolic Bible; (b) The Reformers endorsed what was the Waldensian Bible; (c) Sister White endorsed the Bible of the Reformation and the Waldensian Bible; (d) the Waldenses could not have guarded the Vulgate because it contained many errors.

Note the following testimonies from authorities showing how these two parallel streams rivaled one another at different epochs in history:

1. (a) In the first place Dr. Hort states definitely (“introduction” pp. 137, 138) Jerome’s antagonism to Antioch’s theology as he (Hort) declares Antioch to be the home of the Textus Receptus in 350 A.D.; and then (“Introduction,” p. 276) Dr. Hort places in opposition to this (Antioch’s) Textus Receptus the text formed from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus types of MSS as being true apostolic text. Here is rivalry and opposition of the two Bibles in Constantine’s time.

(b) Dr. Schaff (“Companion,” etc. p. 113) says the Codex A or Alexandrinus occupies “an intermediate position between the oldest uncial (Vaticanus type) and the later cursive (Textus Receptus) text.” Here again are the two streams at the earliest dates of their rivalry, Constantine’s time.

(c) Dr. Kenyon proves—as I previously showed—that the Latin reproduction of the Vaticanus type was simply the Itala or the Latin Textus Receptus type with the variant Textus Receptus readings removed.

(d) Dr. Nolan (“Integrity,” pp. 432, 434) declared that Origen’s fabricated Greek Bible (Vaticanus type) tended to weaken the authority of the Authorized Greek Bible (Textus Receptus) in the Old as well as in the New Testament.

(e) And finally Dr. Swete shows that in the days of Constantine the Textus Receptus and the Eusebio-Origin Bible were rivals and opposing versions. He also mentions a third version, the Hosychian, or African Bible. This ceased to be a line of its own, came to an end, and is not represented in modern versions.

2. We proved from Dr. Jacobus that the Old Latin opposed the Vulgate for 1,000 years.

3. We proved from the preface of the Jesuit Bible that the Waldensian Bible was the opponent of the Vulgate, the Jesuits called it the “false” heretical translation” of the Waldenses, and Sister White says that the Waldenses kept the truth uncorrupted for 1,000 years.

4. We proved that the final split between the Catholics and Protestants came at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). My Reviewers made no attempt to notice or to answer the first four resolutions of that Council which I gave in my book, decreeing the Vulgate the authoritative Bible of the Papacy. Moreover, to have a Greek Manuscript in which to base authoritatively the Vulgate, the learned fathers of the Counsel of Trent, after searching through all the libraries of Italy, shrewdly understood the Vaticanus to be the manuscript.

5. Dr. Fulke, when writing to the Queen of England in the preface of his book, just about the very time that the Council of Trent Fathers chose the Vaticanus, said:

“In which, that I speak nothing of their insincere purpose in leaving the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation, which (beside all other manifest corruptions) is found defective in more than an hundred places, as your majesty, according to the excellent knowledge in both the tongues wherewith God has blessed you, is very well able to judge.” p. 5 (Emphasis mine).

6. Later in my book I presented the struggle between the Jesuit Bible of 1582 in English, and the Tyndale and Geneva Versions.

7. I presented very clearly the great struggles that were on around the Revision table for ten years between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener, the one standing for the Textus Receptus and the other for the Vaticanus. Of These scenes, Bishop Ellicott, president of the committee says. “It was often a kind of critical duel between Dr. Hort and Dr. Scrivener, in which everything that could be urged on either side was placed before the Company.” “Addresses,” p. 61.

8. And finally, Hastings says:
“The ordinary English student of the Bible is able readily to appreciate the points at issue in the controversy between the Alpha (Textus Receptus) and Beta (WH) texts, because they are substantially represented to him by the differences (so far as they are differences in text, and not merely in rendering) between the AV and the RV.” “Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 927 (Emphasis mine).

On the quotation of the eclipse of the sun at the death of Christ, Dr. Frederick Fields says that the manuscripts began to divide on this point at the time of Origcn (Field’s Notes, p. 79).

I would also recall here that Erasmus divided all Greek manuscripts into two classes; one which agreed with the Textus Receptus and the other which agreed with the Vaticanus. My Reviewers revived the old grouping made by Griesbach, into three classes, but exploded by Archbishop Lawrence. I gave these conclusions in my book. Everything which the Reviewers brought in counter argument, confirmed, but did not shake these conclusions.

I think now that I have given evidence abundant enough for this short document, and amply backed by authorities to show the two parallel streams of Bibles.

Even putting aside the appeals to Ellen G. White (what they call the "Spirit of Prophecy") this muddle-mess contains a boat-load of fallacies and errant claims. Basically, Wilkinson has ignored all the fundamental problems of his two streams theory, and given a grab-bag of quotes and arguments that are interesting, but worthless to the actual point.

===================

Oh, notice how neither Wilkinson publication gives what would be the proof of the pudding. A list of the dozens of major variants where (supposedly, theoretically) the Old Latin manuscripts agree with the Received Text, while the Vulgate has the Alexandrian-Vaticanus-Westcott/Hort recension reading. Wilkinson gives not dozens, not 10, not 5, not 1. The Wilkinson Old Latin good line, Vulgate bad line, theory is simply worthless. It is, however, a fine example of building a theory on hopeful reading and twisting, conjecture and sand. And, in the Wilkinson iteration, a misplaced faith in “The Spirit of Prophecy.”

===================

Wilkinson's material is often good. He did solid research on many issues, like the Council of Trent and the decrepit Revision. His SDA background usually does not get in the way, and the Adventists have their own ups and downs on the pure Bible issues. However, the "two streams" doctrine was enthusiastically embraced by AV defenders, and in many ways it is simply a scholastic embarrassment. There are ways it can have an element of truth, but really, the paradigm is wrong. The Alexandrian corruptions of the abbreviated text of Vaticanus barely qualify as a stream, more like a trickle. The real issue is the pure Reformation Bible, from superb Greek and Latin and church writer and textual scholarship, compared to the ultra-corruption text of Vaticanus and a small number of allies. The modern scholarship is still blinded by the Westcott-Hort recension pseudo-scholarship, which is total nonsense.

Edward Freer Hills directly refutes the Wilkinson SDA textual error

The contras posted an exchange involving Ted Letis and Edward Freer Hills that reinforces some of the material above.
The first comment in the post about Waite being inconsistent is silly, but the rest is interesting for historical backdrop.

And I have highlighted the quotes from Edward Hills that shows his basic correct understanding that the Latin Vulgate was a part of the Received Text preservation. (In fact, he mildly understates its helpful influence.)

The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptist--Revisited
Theodore P. Letis, 2004

As a young undergraduate I recall how excited I was to receive an invitation in the mail to attend the founding of a new organization to be called: “The Dean Burgon Society.” Earlier I had borrowed a copy of Burgon’s Revision Revised all the way from the Evangelical Library in England, and was an immediate disciple. When I contacted Edward Hills with this exciting news, another Burgonian and author of the book that began the 20th century revival of interest in Burgon with his 1956 publication: The King James Version Defended (it was he who would also eventually became my mentor), his reply was rather deprecating: he said that he, too, had received this invitation but would not be going. When I asked why not he said the following to me in a personal letter:

October 3, 1978
Dear Ted,

I heard about the proposed meeting of the Burgon Society in August. In fact, I received an invitation by way of the same form letter. I was thinking of going, but I have not decided it would be worth the expense involved…. This Burgon society seems to be started by Don Waite for his own glorification. He sent me a nervy questionnaire which everyone who attends the meeting is supposed to fill out. When were you saved and where. Your age, wife’s age, children, schools attended beginning with high school, positions held, church affiliation, why you want to join the Burgon society, etc., etc. Some people “have more crust than a pie factory.” You would think that Don Waite had some $75,000 job to offer me…. They ought to call the society the Wilkerson Society.

Most of them are following Wilkinson’s 7th Day Adventist approach, [i.e.] the true text was corrupted by Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church. The true text was preserved by the Bogomiles, the Albigensians, and the Waldensians. But this 7th Day Adventist approach does not agree with the fact that the King James Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus which is the text preserved by the medieval Greek Church plus a few readings from the Latin Vulgate which is the text preserved by the medieval Roman Church.

Hence, when Baptists try to defend the King James Version, they are up a tree, scholastically speaking…. In short, these Baptist defenders of the KJV are terribly confused. Sometimes they follow Wilkinson, sometimes Burgon, sometimes they follow [Zane] Hodges, who ignores the special providence of God altogether. If I went to the meeting, I would probably try to straighten these Baptists out and make enemies. So I will just keep quiet and try to uncurl their crooked thinking with my books…
Edward F. Hills

As I read these words I, of course, thought he was just being overly crusty and aloof. I soon learned that he was using incisive insight and wisdom in not associating with what turned out to be a debacle. He went on in another letter to give his personal opinion of the real significance of this society:

Nov. 16 1978
Dear Ted,

Congratulations on your making the trek to Philadelphia [to attend the founding meeting of the Dean Burgon Society]….If I had been present, I would have probably tried to straighten everybody out and would have made enemies. I can’t bear to see everyone so mixed up…. It is odd that they called the Society the John William Burgon Society. Burgon had little use for Baptists. He regarded them as “sectarians,” and was angry when they were admitted as students at Oxford and Cambridge…. In short, Baptists are very good at getting crowds of common people and organizing, but when it comes to coherent thinking they are a little weak…
Edward F. Hills

Soon after I returned from the founding of the society, basking in my new found status as a founding committee member of a society--I thought--dedicated to promoting the ideas of the High Church Anglican, John William Burgon, I received a phone call from D.A. Waite. He requested that I either change my church membership from the very conservative, Evangelical “Wesleyan Church” (an old holiness denomination founded in the 19th century against the practice of slavery), to being a Baptist, or resign my seat on the founding committee. Another conservative Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Don Miller, pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (the Presbyterian denomination founded by the conservative champion of the modernist/fundamentalist battle in America in the 1930s, and founder of the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, J. Gresham Machen), was also asked to resign his pastorate and become a Baptist, or else resign his seat as well. It seems Don and I were the only two who actually had any knowledge of the Biblical languages, besides Waite, that is. Hence, we were both forced to resign; but not until after we delivered to Waite our respective mailing lists for the benefit of the mass mailing list of the Society.

I recently made contact with Don Miller and asked him to write a brief summary of his experience for a matter of historical record. The following is what he wrote:

I can't remember the date or year but it was in the [late] 1970s that I heard of a constituting meeting of what would become the "Dean Burgon Society." I did not hesitate to sign up for that meeting and actually attended it when it convened in Philadelphia near the airport.

I was very excited about being in the company of those who honored the Sacred Text enough to shed the notions of higher text criticism and embrace what is known now as the Ecclesiastical Text.

It was at this meeting that I met you for the first time. But soon after the meeting I found out that both of us had been dropped as constituting members for the flimsiest of reasons. I can't remember why you we're dropped but I was dropped because I was an Orthodox Presbyterian and, therefore, part of a church that was a member of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. I think it was because of their understanding, or the lack thereof, of the use of "ecumenical."

Ever since then I have remained true to my conviction that the shift in text criticism occasioned by the RV of 1881 was grossly in error and that the honoring of those old rags, Aleph and Vaticanus, borders on insanity.

I stand ready to bear witness at the judgment to both the frivolous treatment of us by Dr. Waite and to all those who have bought into the text criticism of our day and who have been so critical of us.

Only later would I learn of Waite’s virulent hatred for Calvinistic Christianity, as I would read his tirades against Calvinism in his other newsletter, The Bible For Today.

My own letter of resignation followed shortly after my phone conversation with Waite and is rather self-explanatory:

Letter of Resignation from the
Dean Burgon Society
February 27, 1979

Dear Executive Committee Members,

I regret that I was unable to attend your last executive committee meeting, primarily because I missed your fellowship, but also I was not able to address myself to the issue of being in association with apostate organizations. I am not only concerned because decisions reached affected me personally; nor am I concerned only because these decisions affect good men who stand only for the Traditional Greek text of whom there are few and far between, Brothers De Jonge and Miller; but I am especially concerned because we have appeared to be defeating our own purpose, in our defining what constitutes an apostate group, or what constitutes being in agreement, or association with them. Do you realize by our own separatist definitions, the very man whom the organization is named after could not, if he were alive, qualify for an executive seat? This is lunacy!

I will go further by saying the greatest living defenders of the Traditional Greek text could not be on the executive committee of an organization whose purpose is to defend the Traditional Greek text if they cared to be, namely Terrence H. Brown and Edward F. Hills. How could we look to these men (and we all do for leadership) in our understanding of the text, if they are not fit to hold executive seats in the Dean Burgon Society, Dean Burgon included?

I believe we have lost sight of the fact that we must be the salt in the church to restore the correct teaching concerning the text starting with our own denominational constituencies. We have not joined together to prove to the Baptist world that we understand what it means to be separate. I will say it very clearly, THIS IS NOT A BAPTIST CAUSE, it is the cause of every Christian in the world whatever his church tradition (Burgon and Hoskier were Anglicans, Wilkinson was a Seventh Day Adventist) whoever would adhere to an inerrant Bible. If I have to drop my church membership to retain my status on the executive committee of the Dean Burgon Society, I will do so only because my conviction on the text supersedes all other convictions including my church membership.

Let me put a thought to you. Suppose the majority of the men on the executive committee including the office holders were Anglican or Presbyterian and they decided that only those who recognize apostolic succession or paedobaptism could defend the traditional text in the capacity of an executive committee member; or let us suppose that they said anyone could be, except for those who are members of a Baptist Church. How many of you would discontinue your membership in order to play a key role in defending the Traditional text in that capacity? If I have to tell my pastor that I must discontinue my membership because of my association with the Dean Burgon Society, which news would also reach the headquarters of my denomination, how will I ever get them to see what that society stands for without them confusing it with other secondary issues such as Baptist separation?

Please reconsider re-evaluating this decision. The Dean Burgon Society is not a local church. It is a society formed to re-educate the Christian world about the true text. But as it stands now John William Burgon could never be an executive member of that society which nevertheless saw fit to use his name.

In the Love of Christ,
Theodore P. Letis

This had only one effect and it was to inspire one of the DBS board members by the name of Hollowood, to write me a letter and inform me that were Burgon alive today, he would surely be a fundamentalist Baptist…

Hills was not surprised at these tactics and his wisdom in keeping his distance was impeccable. He ruminated on these doings in another letter to me:

Feb. 22, 1979
Dear Ted,

I was interested to get your letter and hear about your short-lived officialdom in the Dean Burgon Society….Dean Burgon would never have recognized them. As I said, Burgon was a high Anglican. He would recognize only the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church as true churches. All other denominations he regarded as sects because they did not have the “apostolic succession,” the laying on of hands by previous bishops of the Greek Church…. I can’t understand the logic of putting you fellows out, however. For on the same principle they would have to put Dean Burgon out, because he not only believed in infant baptism but also baptismal regeneration.

In short, the Dean Burgon Society is ridiculous in every way…. These Baptists have their heart in the right place. The trouble is with their heads. My plan is not to argue with them about the Bogomiles and Waldensians but simply through my books teach the true, biblical view that the N.T. text was preserved during the medieval period by true believers in the Greek (and to a lesser degree the Roman) Church….

Edward F. Hills

When once the so-called Dean Burgon Society put out its first newsletter, Hills had some pungent remarks about this as well:

May 9 1979
Dear Ted,

I have been getting the bulletin of the John Burgon Society. I don’t like the way in which they wrote up the doings. They seem to be making the effort to obliterate all memory of you and Bill De Jonge. They don’t even mention the fact that you were invited originally. I told you not to go and that the whole thing was organized for one purpose, namely, the glorification of Don Waite. But you wouldn’t believe me. Don Waite has cleared the deck for himself, but he still hasn’t done any textual criticism. The reason being that he knows little about the subject. All he does is fill his little paper with quotes from Dean Burgon…. But I hope to see you before long, and then we can talk of this and also other things.
Edward F. Hills

Finally, as the society got rolling Hills acknowledged why he was not going public with his reflections about this society dedicated to a man on whom Hills was the greatest living authority, and yet of which Hills wisely chose to keep his distance. His dismay, as well as his restraint are reflected in this final letter on the topic:

May 24, 1979
Dear Ted,

…. Have you received the latest Burgon Society Bulletin? The glorification of Don Waite. He does all the writing. In fact, this Bulletin is no different from his other bulletin called The Bible for Today. He even includes the same boyhood picture of himself. If he didn’t want you and De Jonge [De Jonge was a layman in the OPC, also dismissed] in his organization, why did he invite you in the first place? Hope to see you in September, if not sooner.
Edward F. Hills

Hills was not the only disappointed Burgonian at such a public sham. Dr. David Otis Fuller, who was Vice-President of the Burgon Society, wrote the following letter to me shortly after my forced resignation:

February 2, 1979
Dear Ted,

I appreciate receiving your letter concerning our action on Bill DeJonge and Don Miller. It could be that we had not had time to think this thing through and I do hope there will be time on the agenda the next time we meet as a committee to discuss this more thoroughly.

The points you have brought up [in my letter of resignation] should be considered carefully. I agree with you, this is NOT a Baptist cause. It involves all born again believers of whatever persuasion to stand together as ONE in this WAR, not a battle, against the floodtides of apostasy that swirl around us.

I thank God for your attitude, that you place this first and foremost in your thinking. It is indeed a life or death matter for IF, Ted, we do not have an infallible…inspired Book to rest our weary souls upon for Time and Eternity our salvation is worthless and we have but one option: let’s eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die and go to hell….

I would be glad if we could review this action at our next meeting. In fact, I wish I had been another one who abstained from voting. We did it too quickly. Had I thought in time I certainly would have tried to put off final action until our next meeting. God bless you Ted. I surely hope you can be with us at our next meeting. Keep up the GREAT work…
David Otis Fuller

Fuller’s personal sentiments to me were no mere smoothing-over, political gesture. By 1986, seven years after he wrote this letter and after I had graduated from college and earned my master’s from Emory, he invited me to write a book for a new branch of his organization I helped create, called, “The Institute for Biblical Textual Studies.” The book was titled The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. I dedicated it to the man who had given me my life’s endeavor in these studies, Edward F. Hills (1912-1981), over whose funeral I was privileged to provide the eulogy.

And I understand that the popular Wycliffe text from Forshall & Madden was not early enough, and included later manuscript revisions towards the Latin Vulgate.

However, the basic theory that this might vindicate the idea that the Old Latin text is the good one, and the Latin Vulgate is the bad one, is very difficult. Thus we do not see specific variants mentioned where the Old Latin is actually == Received Text contra the Vulgate.

Without such Bible verse specifics, the theory really does not go anywhere.

This was a Benjamin Wilkinson theory that was designed to be in harmony with the SDA emphasis on the Waldensian church, and sister churches, as the true church in the medieval period. Since they were the true church, they must have the pure Bible. However, Wilkinson never actually showed the superiority of their Bible, nor did he discuss variants and manuscripts. He did mangle the theories from c. 1815 from the learned Frederick Nolan as his basic argument.

And I go into a lot of this on the posts here, and I added a post tonight where you can easily see how Edward Freer Hills, in discussion with Ted Letis, properly rejected this theory.

Hills does mention the distinction between the Reformation Bible (versions from the Received Text) being not a direct preservational text, but a restoration of the pure apostolic Bible (my words here.) The theory that preservation requires a singular perfect text from the first century continuously on is attractive conceptually, but not at all a necessity, and falls to the "facts on the ground". The great Reformation Bible enterprise combined the preservation in the Greek and Latin Bibles, with augmenting superb scholarship on the early church writers and faith-based textual understandings.

As an aside, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate are not by any means monolithic in variant support. And one element of Jerome's Vulgate was the elimination of non-scriptural additions that had come into (corrupted) the Old Latin line!

From my studies, the scholarship of Jerome was quite strong. Look, e.g. at the note of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles where he specifically discusses the heavenly witnesses as a verse that had been subject to improper omission by unfaithful translators (in context, scribes in general.)

The actual lyrical element of affection and use in reading and worship of the Old Latin Bible may have been a major element of the faith of the Waldensian groups of Christian believers. They truly loved and believed their Bibles, and would labour to have them in the vernacular languages, like the Tepl Old German rather than simply Latin. However their Bible, in terms of the text, was comparable to, and often greatly influenced by, the Vulgate of Jerome. Their faith wonderfulness (which itself varies) was not the result of the great textual superiority of their Bibles.

Helvidius the textual hero of Wilkinson and many AV defenders

Here is a simple example of a Benjamin WIlkinson - Waldensian error in understanding textual history of the AV.
This is passed through to AV writers like Floyd Nolen Jones.

================================================== ========

WILKINSON LAUDS HELVIDIUS CONTRA VULGATE

Chaper 3 The Reformers Reject the Bible of the Papacy http://kjv.benabraham.com/html/chapter-3.htmlIn preparing the Latin Bible, Jerome would gladly have gone all the way in transmitting to us the corruptions in the text of Eusebius, but he did not dare. Great scholars of the West were already exposing him and the corrupted Greek manuscripts.(10) Jerome especially mentions Luke 2:33 (where the Received Text read: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him," while Jerome's text read: "His father and his mother marvelled," etc.) to say that the great scholar Helvidius, who from the circumstances of the case was probably a Vaudois, accused him of using corrupted Greek manuscripts.(11)(10) W.H. Green, The Text of the O.T., p. 116, and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, p. 338
(11) Jerome against Helvidius

Another version of Wilkinson from Standish

You will see by this that Helvidius. the great scholar of the Italic Church, which was the predecessor of the Waldensian or the pre-Waldensian Church, accuses Jerome of using Luke 2:33 just as we find it now in the American Revised Version from corrupt Greek MSS. It is clear that Helvidius had the pure Greek MSS. which were older than the corrupt Greek MSS used by Jerome. The pure Greek MSS read Luke 2:33 as we now read it in the King James Version; so on this one text the present battle between the King James and the American Revised Versions is the centuries-old battle fought between the pre-Waldensian Church and the
growing Roman Catholic Church. B. G. Wilkinson.

Here is more from Wilkinson

Truth Triumphant: The Church in the Wilderness
B. G. Wilkinson http://books.google.com/books?id=in7kfz58EZ8C&pg=PA68As for Helvidius, all that was written by him and for him has been destroyed. Though he lived a century and a half after Justin Martyr and more than a century after Tertullian. Cyprian, Origen, and Clement, their writings have been preserved, while his were destroyed. Helvidius belonged to the church which strove to hand down the doctrines of the Bible in the pure form. He is famous for his exposure of Jerome for using corrupted Greek manuscripts in bringing out the Vulgate, the Latin Bible of the papacy. If the thunders of Jerome had not been turned against Helvidius, we would know less concerning him.

"Helvidius, a so-called heresiarch of the fourth century, a layman who opposed the growing superstitions of the church----He was a pupil of Auxentius, bishop of Milan, and the precursor of Jovinian." Duchesne points out that Auxentius. for twenty years at the head of the diocese of Milan, was from Asia Minor and impressed on these regions the Syrian leadership in Christianity. Daring in his scholarship, Helvidius accused Jerome, as Jerome himself admits, of using corrupt Greek manuscripts.

Sounds impressive.

================================================== ========

AV DEFENDERS FOLLOW WILKINSON

Which Version is the Bible (1999)
Floyd Nolen Joneshttp://www.christianmissionconnectio..._the_Bible.pdf
Chapter 5 p. 108
Helvidius, a great orthodox scholar of the fourth century and a contemporary of Jerome's, accused Jerome of using corrupted Greek
manuscripts. Remember. Jerome was using Origen's work and from that he produced the Latin Vulgate. Likewise. Aleph and "B" have their roots in Origen. Thus Helvidius condemns them all for even in his day that "fountain" was known to be corrupt.
Chapter 7 p. 167
Remember that Helvidius, a great scholar of northern Italy and contemporary of Jerome, accused Jerome of using corrupt Greek manuscripts in producing a new Latin Bible for the Pope. This would have been a meaningless accusation from Helvidius if he
could not have produced the pure original readings either!

The Waldenses and the Bible
Elder Robert L. Webbhttp://libcfl.com/articles/waldbib.htmIn the fourth century, Helvidius, a great scholar of northern Italy, accused Jerome, whom the Pope had empowered to form a Bible in Latin for Catholicism, with using corrupt Greek manuscripts. (Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6, p. 338.) How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing corrupt Greek MSS. if Helvidius had not had the pure Greek manuscripts?

And so learned and so powerful in writing and teaching was Jovinian, the pupil of Helvidius, that it demanded three of Rome's most famous fathers - Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose - to unite in opposing Jovinian's influence. Even then, it needed the condemnation of the Pope and the banishment of the Emperor to prevail. But Jovinian's followers lived on and made the way easier for Luther.

many more.

================================================== ========

CURIOUSITY

Now I never heard of Helvidius as a great textual scholar .. In fact, all we know of Helvidius is from Jerome's writing against him on the perpetual virginity issue. Technically Helvidius was right, against the perpetual virginity of Mary, Jerome was wrong. However, what did Helvidius say about the Greek or Latin manuscripts ?

This story is everywhere, about the good manuscripts of Helvidius versus the junque of Jerome.

================================================== ========

Luke 2:33
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

for Luke tells us (Luke 2:33)
"His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him."

And yet you with marvelous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek MS is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left in their books, and not only these, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words of the same way.

JEROME'S TEXT - EVERYTHING WE HAVE OF HELVIDIUS AND GREEK AND LATIN MSS

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Against Helvidius.http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-08.htmYou cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, "His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him." And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. Nor need we now consider the variations in the copies, since the whole record both of the Old and New Testament has since that time been(28) translated into Latin, and we must believe that the water of the fountain flows purer than that of the stream.

Helvidius will answer, "What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, `And he took his wife, and knew her again no more'? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? `He knew her not,' he says, `until she brought forth a son.' He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered."

(28) The allusion is to the Old Latin, the Versio Itala. The quotations which follow stand differently in Jerome's Vulgate, made subsequently (391-404). The argument is that, since the copies of the Latin version substantially agree in the present case, it is futile to suppose variations in the original.

The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, �Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.�

================================================== =======

So we have, for one verse, Jerome saying that Helvidius might say that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt. In this hypothetical Helviticus is likely simply appealing to his Old Latin manuscripts. He studied in Milan, Italy, where Latin would be the language.

In the real scholarship of the time, I could find no reference to Helvidius and Greek manuscripts. All we have is Jerome conjecturing that Helvidius might call his Greek mss corrupt. Also Helvidius might point out that a reading was not sure "diversity of readings".

This is magnified into a wholesale attack on the Latin Vulgate and a proposed different ancient Greek text with Helvidius. Out of nothing. Also, Helvidius does not particularly informed on manuscripts. He was very good on the doctrinal issues of Mary.

================================================== =======

Basically, a wild extrapolation, conjectural, without any base. No indication that Helvidius even read Greek manuscripts.

You will find this whole story quoted in many of the Baptist AV defenders.

The origin goes back to a more nuanced approach of Frederick Nolan.

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek vulgate, or received text of the New Testament (1815)
Frederick Nolan http://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA169This method of correcting the Latin version seems liable but to the one objection which it is my main object to establish; that the text of Eusebius, by which St. Jerome in some places modelled his translation, possessed not authority equal to that of the Old Italick version. And we consequently find, that this very objection was made to the Greek text by Hilary the Deacon; and to St. Jerome, by Helvidius, who accused him of following copies that had been corrupted.

The Alexandrian manuscript (Codex "A") arrived in London in 1627. Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the King James translators as it arrived sixteen years too late for their use. (1) Being untrue, this serves as an example of the unreliable manner in which most of the history concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the first place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph (2) were well known not only to translators of the King James but to Erasmus. The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587 so the King James translators in 1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament was concerned.

Thus the men working on the 1611 publication of the King James Bible knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B, they already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant readings even though the first portion of it was not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in 1859) as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts – and they rejected them! They also knew the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B, C and D (the "old uncials"), where they differed from the Received Text and they denounced them all. How can this be so? The readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently made available are essentially the same as Jerome's Latin Vulgate (3) which finds its foundation in the works of Origen. The Reformers knew all about the variant readings of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is the same thing as rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex Vaticanus as it was copied from his work. Thus, the Reformers had all the material necessary for the task at their disposal. (4)